Concepts and Physiological Aspects of the Otolith Organ in Relation to Electrical Stimulation

Abstract

Background: This paper discusses some of the concepts and major physiological issues in developing a means of electrically stimulating the otolithic system, with the final goal being the electrical stimulation of the otoliths in human patients. It contrasts the challenges of electrical stimulation of the otolith organs as compared to stimulation of the semicircular canals. Electrical stimulation may consist of trains of short-duration pulses (e.g., 0.1 ms duration at 400 Hz) by selective electrodes on otolith maculae or otolithic afferents, or unselective maintained DC stimulation by large surface electrodes on the mastoids – surface galvanic stimulation. Summary: Recent anatomical and physiological results are summarized in order to introduce some of the unique issues in electrical stimulation of the otoliths. The first challenge is that each otolithic macula contains receptors with opposite polarization (opposing preferred directions of stimulation), unlike the uniform polarization of receptors in each semicircular canal crista. The puzzle is that in response to the one linear acceleration in the one macula, some otolithic afferents have an increased activation whereas others have decreased activation. Key Messages: At the vestibular nucleus this opposite receptor hair cell polarization and consequent opposite afferent input allow enhanced response to the one linear acceleration, via a “push-pull” neural mechanism in a manner analogous to the enhancement of semicircular canal responses to angular acceleration. Within each otolithic macula there is not just one uniform otolithic neural input to the brain – there are very distinctly different channels of otolithic neural inputs transferring the neural data to the brainstem. As a simplification these channels are characterized as the sustained and transient systems. Afferents in each system have different responses to stimulus onset and maintained stimulation and likely different projections, and most importantly different thresholds for activation by electrical stimulation and different adaptation rates to maintained stimulation. The implications of these differences are considered.